Steve Bellayr
Veteran
You can see this coming. Why do I need a point and shoot camera when my smart phone has one and every two years when I sign a contract I get a new one?
Digital camera market is collapsing
- Thread starter HHPhoto
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 280
- Views 38K
thegman
Veteran
I suppose before smartphones had decent cameras, the digital camera market consisted of people that wanted to take photos. Now it's people who want to take photos, but their smartphone isn't good enough (either in quality, or usability). So now, the digital camera market has become much the like the film one, it's hobbyist and professional only.
I think in a way, for digital users, it could be a positive thing, the money for companies will be in hobbyist cameras, not in casual-use cameras, so it may be more likely to see more and more unusual cameras like the X-Pro 1.
I think in a way, for digital users, it could be a positive thing, the money for companies will be in hobbyist cameras, not in casual-use cameras, so it may be more likely to see more and more unusual cameras like the X-Pro 1.
Pioneer
Veteran
I think that some of us unfairly attack the digital camera industry for the continual marketing and upgrade cycles. But unlike film, where the camera format was pretty defined and improvements were actually fairly linear and done at a much more relaxed pace, the digital imaging revolution was anything but. It also required very costly research and development. If you intended to stay in business you had to keep up.
The only thing similar in the film market had been auto focus, and the electronics were relatively simple in comparison to digital sensors and computerized imaging. In this new digital world when a new and better sensor appeared then everyone else had to improve as well, and quickly. Suddenly, instead of the lens and film being the important components, suddenly the camera became just as important, if not more so.
Combine this with the burgeoning economy in the 2000s where it seemed that just about anyone had the disposable income needed to buy a new camera every year or two. The race was on. And every viable camera company was rushing to get on board.
But now, things are a little different. To start with no one can claim that we are living in a burgeoning economy. Next, the smartphone explosion is wreaking havoc with lots of industries, not just the camera industry. It has also turned the computer industry, including laptops, on its ear. Finally, though no one is really willing to admit it yet, the digital camera has finally begun to mature. Even the smaller sensors are pretty competent for most needs. Most people don't print at all anymore, and those that do almost always troop down to their local big box store and have it done for them. They can even send photos direct from their phone and have them printed for them.
Consumer photography has moved on to a different technology and the camera companies will be left fighting over the scraps that remain among the enthusiasts and the pros. Enthusiasts and pros who have a lot less disposable income. It will be a pretty tough go for awhile but eventually the bankruptcies, buyouts and take overs will shake things out and whatever is left will be ready for the next great thing.
The only thing similar in the film market had been auto focus, and the electronics were relatively simple in comparison to digital sensors and computerized imaging. In this new digital world when a new and better sensor appeared then everyone else had to improve as well, and quickly. Suddenly, instead of the lens and film being the important components, suddenly the camera became just as important, if not more so.
Combine this with the burgeoning economy in the 2000s where it seemed that just about anyone had the disposable income needed to buy a new camera every year or two. The race was on. And every viable camera company was rushing to get on board.
But now, things are a little different. To start with no one can claim that we are living in a burgeoning economy. Next, the smartphone explosion is wreaking havoc with lots of industries, not just the camera industry. It has also turned the computer industry, including laptops, on its ear. Finally, though no one is really willing to admit it yet, the digital camera has finally begun to mature. Even the smaller sensors are pretty competent for most needs. Most people don't print at all anymore, and those that do almost always troop down to their local big box store and have it done for them. They can even send photos direct from their phone and have them printed for them.
Consumer photography has moved on to a different technology and the camera companies will be left fighting over the scraps that remain among the enthusiasts and the pros. Enthusiasts and pros who have a lot less disposable income. It will be a pretty tough go for awhile but eventually the bankruptcies, buyouts and take overs will shake things out and whatever is left will be ready for the next great thing.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Even in the fi,m days many people owned more than one camera. The "family" point and shoot (Kodak Instamatic) and Dad's "serous" camera.
So the concept of co-existing and overlapping camera products within the same household buying patterns is still the same as before. As explained earlier, for reasons of sensor size and optics smartphones cannot do what dedicated optical cameras can. This needs to be the marketing effort by the legacy optical companies to keep the sales going, along with networking devices and mobile OS friendly interfaces.
So the concept of co-existing and overlapping camera products within the same household buying patterns is still the same as before. As explained earlier, for reasons of sensor size and optics smartphones cannot do what dedicated optical cameras can. This needs to be the marketing effort by the legacy optical companies to keep the sales going, along with networking devices and mobile OS friendly interfaces.
Scrambler
Well-known
I think "the great unwashed" assumed you needed a dSLR to get decent jpgs. Now that software correction, higher ISO and more computing power/better algorithms are delivering punchy jpgs on smartphones, that paradigm is broken. Most people just want crisp bright onscreen images. Anything more is enthusiast territory.
Biggest wastes in my camera buying life: Kodak Zx1 (basically a smartphone camera in a dedicated housing) and a dSLR for my wife to take quality kid photos. The smartphone wins for convenience with acceptable quality.
mervynyan
Mervyn Yan
I have not purchased or upgraded any digital cameras since 2008. D700 it was-🙂
Range-rover
Veteran
I go thru Grand Central Terminal every night going home and you see all
the people there using their Iphones, Ipads and the like taking pictures
with them. There are people using SLRs but I don't see everyone using
them, and the prices are high for the better SLR camera the're go the
cheaper route.
Range
the people there using their Iphones, Ipads and the like taking pictures
with them. There are people using SLRs but I don't see everyone using
them, and the prices are high for the better SLR camera the're go the
cheaper route.
Range
Aristophanes
Well-known
Not in low light, certainly not for crisp.
Not with any decent zoo; still need optics for that.
I take photos of kids at events with my DSLR and post them to friends etc. and pretty son the difference in quality leaps out at people to the point where they ask me about getting a "better camera".
The trick is the dedicated camera makers have not dialled in the same convenience as the smartphones, so the whole package ratio of quality: convenience has little differentiation.
That's an engineered marketing difference for exploitation. What this says is the dedicated camera market failed to keep up and so sales are stalled and falling.Once they correct this and market effectively, sales will rebound and match normal growth patterns.
charjohncarter
Veteran
People always ask me; (I live in an upper middle class town, where the latest is the most important thing) why do you shoot film? I don't say why do you shoot digital (which is because they can look at their photos on Facebook), but I do say because I like it. Of course, they look at me like I should be driving a Range Rover instead of a Mini.
folks, I like this discussion.
I think its one of the best on RF.
Different views and analysis of our very changing photographic times.
Stephen
I think its one of the best on RF.
Different views and analysis of our very changing photographic times.
Stephen
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
The most probable cause of an EMP would also wipe us out and there have been enough near misses with primitive versions to convince many people.
BTW, my enlargers have all relied on a bulb and a switch and a bit of wire, not exactly electronics...
Regards, David
Scrambler
Well-known
You might have misunderstood me, Aristophanes. My wife uses the SLR but probably 95% of kid photos are taken with her smartphone. Can you pick the difference? It's night and day, like you say. But most of the time convenience of carry wins. She takes the SLR to major events.
Ranchu
Veteran
I think I read the iphone 6 has a five element lens and a fixed 35mm equivalent fov. I'm not sure most people will ever want anything different than that.
Highway 61
Revisited
I wonder how many people, albeit total photo buffs, may have the time free to "make their own film in their kitchens", then have some additional time free stock to shoot and home-process, when they have a job, a family, kids, and other duties.
Come on ! Even for people loving film (I'm one of them, and I also love my mechanical vintage stuff) it's sometimes hard to find time to regularly shoot then home-process, then scan and/or enlarge.
Speaking of B&W film ; I never went to C41 at home because it would be more time-consuming than B&W, and with no serious wet darkroom enlargements possibilities, while I can get gallery standard large FB prints using some simple and old darkroom gear in my bathroom.
So, let's hope that the B&W film and chemicals and FB papers market won't collapse. Even if it shrinks itself into a small niche, with more expensive yet still available goodies, this will be good enough.
That said - it's not difficult to get used to digital and have fun with it. Using MF legacy lenses on an excellent FF DLSR is a joy in spite of some focusing issues sometimes.
Just fit your DSLR with a MF prime and a nice vintage Italian brown leather strap, lock the IQ on RAW, set the mode on A, the WB on Auto and the exposure comp. to -1/3, turn the screen off and here you go ! 🙂
Bill Clark
Veteran
Prest_400
Multiformat
Agreed on that. I understood wanting just sharp screen images. In my case, even rather mediocre images look excellent on the 5" 1080 screen. Probably not accurate, as the photos lose quite some punch on other screens or paper (sugarcoated screen rendering), but it's the main media for output.
Infact, I was surprised how versatile the phone camera ended being, I don't shoot that much lower light.
Perfect 4x6" prints, decent 8x10s. Infact I'd like RAW just to control the oversharpening and denoise applied, which are the main artifacts seen.
There is a phone boasting a 6 element lens camera.
I am waiting for someone to say "see, my iPhone has as much elements as your expensive Planar!".
My Fuji 6x9 has got 5 elements as well, but it's huge. 😛
jsrockit
Moderator
You would think a site like RFF would not be threatened by a phone with a camera...
burancap
Veteran
I stated on p1 that my new i6 was an impressive camera. Now, I have not spent *that* much time with it, but I am starting to think that may be just a bit of an overstatement on my part.
Maybe "impressively convenient camera" is more apropos. I am no optics engineer, but it would seem to me that I am seeing a good bit of distortion in my images. Circles tend to be egging especially around the edges.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
To Helen (much earlier in the thread):
Though I think the financial market/financial services industry is a great detriment to our society, the decline in camera sales, IMO, is more related to disruptive technology than globalization and/or economic slow-down.
Digital cameras caught the film world off guard and ate it up. Cell phones and connectivity are doing likewise to the big camera makers.
Though I think the financial market/financial services industry is a great detriment to our society, the decline in camera sales, IMO, is more related to disruptive technology than globalization and/or economic slow-down.
Digital cameras caught the film world off guard and ate it up. Cell phones and connectivity are doing likewise to the big camera makers.
Paddy C
Unused film collector
In all discussions of this nature I always feel that some important considerations get overlooked.
One of the big missing parts is that of comparison to past markets.
For example, in the heyday of the 80s, how many cameras were sold? Now adjust for population and wealth increase. How do these numbers compare to today's market?
Millions of people own cell phones and take photos with them. They don't have dedicated cameras. But how many of these people owned cameras of any significance in past generations? How many of them upgraded regularly?
Maybe the mid-to late aughts was a sort of anomalous set of perfect market conditions for the camera industry. Big population, wealth and a stable and growing economy. Combine that with exiting new technology that made it much easier for many people to take up photography and you have a bubble. And it's now bursting like they always do. Companies have to figure out what to do after.
What I'm getting at is is the camera market going through a period of adjustment the end result of which will be the following:
1. P&S and disposable cameras (as used in past generations) will be completely replaced by cell phones. This sector will (already has) seen huge growth because people who didn't own a camera in any past generation now automatically own one. This last part is the sort of "false scare" if you will.
2. Dedicated camera sales will return to levels typical of the 70s/80s/90s adjusted for population with perhaps a small decline.
Or is something else going on? Are cell phones going to eat up everything?
One of the big missing parts is that of comparison to past markets.
For example, in the heyday of the 80s, how many cameras were sold? Now adjust for population and wealth increase. How do these numbers compare to today's market?
Millions of people own cell phones and take photos with them. They don't have dedicated cameras. But how many of these people owned cameras of any significance in past generations? How many of them upgraded regularly?
Maybe the mid-to late aughts was a sort of anomalous set of perfect market conditions for the camera industry. Big population, wealth and a stable and growing economy. Combine that with exiting new technology that made it much easier for many people to take up photography and you have a bubble. And it's now bursting like they always do. Companies have to figure out what to do after.
What I'm getting at is is the camera market going through a period of adjustment the end result of which will be the following:
1. P&S and disposable cameras (as used in past generations) will be completely replaced by cell phones. This sector will (already has) seen huge growth because people who didn't own a camera in any past generation now automatically own one. This last part is the sort of "false scare" if you will.
2. Dedicated camera sales will return to levels typical of the 70s/80s/90s adjusted for population with perhaps a small decline.
Or is something else going on? Are cell phones going to eat up everything?
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
